2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff operates a general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “C” on the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B and the first floor.

B. On November 10, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,160,000 in lieu of 7 days of business suspension on the ground that the Plaintiff was engaged in the business outside of the instant restaurant on September 21, 2016.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the foregoing disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said claim was dismissed on January 23, 2017.

Accordingly, the defendant, on February 6, 2017, shall be the plaintiff and the defendant shall again be the plaintiff.

For the same reason, a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,160,00 (hereinafter referred to as the "instant disposition") was imposed in lieu of the business suspension 7 days.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 5-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretion, considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not engage in the expansion of the place of business or the continuous business outside of the place of business by using illegal facilities; (b) the instant restaurant does not cause inconvenience to citizens’ passage even if the Plaintiff engaged in a business outside the place of business; (c) the Plaintiff operated a business on a small scale with three through five occasions; and (d) the Plaintiff is required to receive loans to pay penalty surcharges in accordance with the instant disposition.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms shall be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the violation as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances. In this case, the criteria for the punitive administrative disposition shall be determined by Ordinance.